Liberal logic is anti logic. 

I was never considered unemployed, but I was.  I didn't collect benefits because I had money.

In other words, by taxing the rich, we doom ourselves to bankruptcy?  Sorry, what I mean to say is, I wish you could write more often.  I don't really care about details, but I always see your point.  Using my imagination I can deduce that, our population growth will consume more resources.  Well it's not my problem, and what are you going to do about it?  

@RulerofMasons - No, but we can not balence the budget on the backs of the top 10%, let alone what many fools think by increasing taxes on the top 2%. 

You are actually incorrect Paige. If unemployed workers quit looking for a job and become discouraged workers than they drop out of the unemployment rate figure. The unemployment rate is only calculated by the labour force and people wishing to join the labour force, so people who do not look for jobs aren't tallied.

@trunthepaige - I know I may be ignorant on this matter, I just can't understand why those who make a lot of profit, how can they feel so strongly that their money is being taken away.  Anyways, I have a better idea regarding taxes.  How about we use the republican tax interest rate for the top ten percent, and if any of those companies wish to give the government more money, they should get to choose where that money goes.  If no company that makes tons of money wants to give extra money to the government, then, the government must obey this will.  The government may be stealing from the rich, but notice that the most successful government in the history of mankind is the government of the united states, and our government is not even that good, it works against us a lot of times, so imagine if we would have a decent government, we would not only be the most successful country in the history of mankind, which we already are, we would also be a prosperous nation without the guilt of having a government loiter money around.  God bless you trun.

@SolidStateTheory - No I not wrong your issue is that you they have a group that is not simply discouraged the government says they no longer exist at all. If you believe that these people are actually gone or that the official discouraged workers category really is made up of those who are no longer looking you well your not thinking at all. After 99 week the government loses it ability to track if a person is looking for a job or not

@RulerofMasons - Because it is their money and no one elses. By world standards you are in the top 1% and wealthy. If the world could vote they very well might take all you have. 

@SolidStateTheory - They drop those figures with a Democratic president. (They were included under Bush.)

@RulerofMasons - As she has pointed out, the wealthy in this country pay the majority of our taxes.If you would like I can show you a breakdown....Here, luv: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

@trunthepaige - Dug your post (and you've got boobs, too!)

@Kellsbella - Like Trun said, by world standards I am a very wealthy man  :  )   The difference is my taxes do not hold the weight of the world, like you just pointed out, the wealthy are carrying us.  But I'm not really into rich worship, and with that kind of mentality, LET THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE begin!!!!  Get money, get money!  Do you know why there never will be a zombie apocalypse?  Do you know why crimes are only implemented by less than one percent of the population?  Do you know why the chinese masses just don't all get attack us at will?  Isn't it strange that our government protects it's citizens with welfare and stuff.  Do you think the government is compassionate, or is money being used to bribe the masses into not objecting?  Or perhaps those who pass laws in Congress have values?  I really don't get why people like you worship the rich, and why others hate them.  I have personally spoken to, and used to work for the owner of a many million dollars in profit company, and he was the nastiest guy, all he did was hire hispanics without papers and treat them like how ever he wanted to.  Oh yeah, the rich are so noble, and the money they make is so pure and honest.  You need to wake up.  Being rich is nothing to be proud about.  If all you want is more money, if all your eyes can see is money, you are already dead.

I often use the word, "hallucination" and the phrase, "alternative reality" to describe the liberal "thought" process.

@SolidStateTheory - Right. And if you shit in the woods it means you don't have a flush toilet.

Really now fewer rich folks is basically a clue. When a few folks have a sort of monopoly, the faster they can get rich.

If Apple didn't have a good sort of "monopoly" wouldn't they be even more rich?

Why have people forgotten the lessons about trust busting?@mtngirlsouth - Liberal logic? Such a g-d broad term, as if conservative logic could be boiled down into a simple phrase. Liberals like me use history and previous experiments to decide whether or not some ideas are workable. I am definitely against the idea of trickle down economy and I dare you to defend it in a whole blog. If you so desire to accept my challenge, I would write against trickle down economics.@trunthepaige - Exageration serves you well but I do not think you understand what taxing the "rich"  really means. When a person hoards money and sends it to off shore places like Caymen Islands and Switzerlan that money is not doing the United States any good. I would endorse rules to stop tax cheaters sending money away from the United States. Some rich people use their money to figure out ways to cheat not giving US money that normally would get taxed.

Even the top 2% have figured out ways to cheat the IRS. However there are some tax breaks that do work, we can't destroy all the tax breaks.

I suppose people will smile that if Rommey and Ryan gets elected Rommey will pay even less money than he paid in taxes last year. His family will thank you, however even looking at the Income tax form that Rommey pays is the type of 1% people you want to "save. "  Ironically Obama also falls in the 1% and has paid way more than Rommey.

Are billionaires or millionaires more dangerous than middle class folks? I suppose you are happy how some of the billionaires have spent on super pacs? Basically the super rich might be able to shut down the voice of the middle class.

@PPhilip - "Liberals like me use history and previous experiments to decide whether or not some ideas are workable."  -  Thanks for the good laugh. I really needed it. I don't have the time or the inclination to write a blog defending what I know. The quoted sentence from you shows me it would do no good anyway. Don't expect any further response from me, and feel free to believe that it is because you frightened me away and confused my tiny mind. Have a nice life. 

@PPhilip - You want me to defend the the idea that you can only increase taxes so much until you start to lose tax revues due to a decrease in economic activity? Do I really need to defend a fact? Every every major tax rate decrease has been followed by a revue increase. That is called history, a subject I have never seen that liberals know well at all. So your solution to an economic downturn is to increase taxes? And spend more money just like Obama did to dismal results. That is called very short term history, I figured your memory goes back that far.

So can you show were raising taxes ever improved an economy?

I don't think that Xanga is a place where you can sway someones opinion using facts. I agree with everything you said, but only because I already agreed before I read your post. 

So are we arguing that the Bush tax breaks improved the economy? Say the period between 2004 to 2008?

But the high taxes during Clinton's term was during a time of a normal economy. Are you saying that the taxes contributed to the recession that began during GW Bush?

Do not put me in a corner that I am wanting exhorbitant taxes. I certainly do not advocate killing the goose that lays the golden egg, However obscene profits is the point of my wanting taxes.

Average person's income (middle class) dropped. The 1%  grew  and doubled. Shouldn't they be limited to 50% increase instead of 100%?

@justfinethanku - What? Are you that cynical? Am I that ignorant of facts? Oh wait some of your blogs are just devoid of facts and that just proves what you are. Going by feelings is not trustworthy, try to phrase your statement again..if possible use examples like me for instance.

@trunthepaige -For instance you are using the 4.9 million people number. The current unemployment number is 1.4 million ( http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/number-of-unemployed-americans-soars-over/ )

You like the larger number, and your source? 1.4 vs 4.9 the exaggeration isnt it nothing to sneeze at?

They pay 71% of taxes because they control (if memory serves) 76 percent of the wealth.  The bottom 80% control only a few percent of the money in the country.  You want to tax them instead?

It's also worth mentioning that you literally espouse in the second half of the blog the exact same logic you denounce in the first half.

@trunthepaige - Would you agree that cutting spending would worsen the recession as well, or are you going to be partisan and selective?

@PPhilip - Stupid argument yes they did but If I give this one to you all you have done is cherry picked a single exception and not even tried to prove that tax increases have a positive effect. Thinking that increasing taxes improves an economy makes you rather unusual about zero economists believe that. And about the rich getting richer sorry they lost more as a percentage and most http://www.cnbc.com/id/48257611/The_Falling_Fortunes_of_the_One_Percent

So your argument is based on a lie. I am not calling you a lair as i am sure you believed the lie was true

@justfinethanku - true

@PPhilip - Dude that number is not the unemployment rate it the number of workers who have dropped out of the work force. They are simply gone